Few days ago a swiss company announced to produce extra-small condomes for the 12- to 14-year old. I didn't pay much attention to this announcement. But I noticed that there was much response in american newspapers and blogs. Some people were indignant about that, others, the more realistic ones, appreciated it.

I think it's a good idea. Those teens who want to have sex do it anyway. It's better to protect themselves.

Views: 47

Comment by Claude Caron on March 6, 2010 at 3:55pm
It is a good idea....kids are having sex earlier than when I was a kid, but the whole "extra-small" might be a deterrent for condom youth in that age group
Comment by Chris Mccready on March 6, 2010 at 4:49pm
Exactly what i was going to say^^^
put that on the label will kill their admirable effort. How many teen guys do you think will go out and buy a condom labels "extra small"
Comment by Shine on March 6, 2010 at 8:12pm
Yikes, a box of condoms labeled "extra-small" will have no marketability. Hopefully, they find some other way to name this size. But I have to admit slight confusion at these really being necessary; are there really that many twelve-year-old kids having sex?
Comment by B. on March 6, 2010 at 8:24pm
I think there are probably quite a few, Shine.
In any case, I think if there is so much as one 12yro having sex, they should have accessible protection.

I also agree that the xs labeling is probably not the best marketing ploy..
Comment by Shine on March 6, 2010 at 9:11pm
I agree, B., that if children are having sex that young there most definitely should be proper protection available for them. I guess I just wonder if children on the cusp of adolescence are really psychologically ready for the emotional fallout that accompanies sex. That bridge between childhood and adulthood is difficult enough trying to form a concept of self-identity without the issues of emotional attachment and placating a partner's wishes. Although adults may be able to separate the physical pleasures of sex from the emotional context, I find it hard to imagine that young teens would be capable of making this distinction. I am not suggesting that abstinence-only education be implemented for children this young, but I do wonder if biological urges should at least be discouraged until a higher degree emotional and intellectual maturity is achieved.
Comment by B. on March 6, 2010 at 10:45pm
oh they're probably not ready at all, for certain.

I suppose you can discourage it, or encourage less-consequential alternatives (eg. masturbation), but limiting access to protection would be the wrong way to prevent sexually active youth. It essentially creates the same problem as abstinence-only education.
Comment by Fabian Kupferschmid on March 7, 2010 at 7:33am
They don't print "extra-small" on the package. They write "narrowed opening".
Comment by Fabian Kupferschmid on March 8, 2010 at 2:33pm
But it's not surprising. Atheism corresponds with a higer IQ. And people with a higher IQ are usually well-educated and have a good Job. I think places with a lot of Christians are also places with a lot of members of the lower class. And that increase the chance to become criminal.
I don't say every Christian is stupid -- but stupid people are usually religious.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service